Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Via Northwich, running semi-fast.

Uggh

 

[Eccles1983]

Via Northwich, running semi-fast.

Then you've caused another problem at Stockport.

Even if you ran it from Chester/Crewe/Airport/Piccadilly you've caused a few more problems. You have only one platform at Crewe that could do it.

Also where does this leave the Bangor/Manchester airport that was promised?

The good people of north Wales have gone from direct airport services to potentially 2 changes. And a much longer time.

Basically the north of Wales has been cut off. I can see MAG putting a stop to that

 

[Glenn1969]

In Option B you would lose your Castlefield service because that option has N Wales trains going to Stalybridge. Calder Valley stations would lose their link to Chester under Option B also

 

[Ianno87]

Uggh

Like the report says - there's no perfect solution to this. Although in this case, partial compensation seems be offered in Chester-Victoria-Leeds becoming half-hourly instead.

The Options presented at least highlight the key choices and trade-offs.

 

[91103eastcoast]

Is it me reading option A wrong or is it suggesting that the Scotland-Manchester service would only run off peak? If so that is a retrograde step.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You don't see Metrolink running 2tph from Bury to each of East Didsbury, Ashton, Eccles, Mediacity and Manchester Airport. With a sufficiently frequent and reliable service, changing trains needn't be a great burden.

If it is sufficiently frequent and reliable. If there's going to be 4tph between Bolton and/or (ideally) Salford Crescent* and Picc that will work fine as it's a quick change, but if it's lower than that (e.g. only the Blackpool-Ringway services call) it's key to make those connections actually work - a 29 minute wait, say, would not be good enough.

I like the idea of simple half-hourly services, but Takt has two parts, and we need both of them. Just simplifying the services without making the connections work will be unpopular - and explains why people do push for that "hourly from everywhere to everywhere" thing.

* Better Salford Crescent than Bolton, the reason being that likely that would be a change from a seat to standing, and having to stand Bolton-Picc won't be popular, but Salford Crescent-Picc is very short and more like a Tube ride. Personally, I think for maximum connectivity to both sides of Manchester we need to look to rebuild Salford Crescent such that all services that pass it stop. Though I wonder if that would happen, because making the connections good at Salford Crescent would render a certain expensive white elephant even more pointless still. Also better connections at Salford Crescent are good for the Atherton line too.

Is it me reading option A wrong or is it suggesting that the Scotland-Manchester service would only run off peak? If so that is a retrograde step.

Yes. Off-peak it would run via Bolton, peak it would run via Parkside. I think that is to allow for another peak extra from the Bolton direction. I think this messiness is a downside of Option 1.

 

[BHXDMT]

If the map is correctly labelled, it shows Liverpool to Cleethorpes being transferred to Northern in Options B and C. Interesting...

 

[91103eastcoast]

If it is sufficiently frequent and reliable. If there's going to be 4tph between Bolton and/or Salford Crescent and Picc that will work fine as it's a quick change, but if it's lower than that (e.g. only the Blackpool-Ringway services call) it's key to make those connections actually work - a 29 minute wait, say, would not be good enough.

I like the idea of simple half-hourly services, but Takt has two parts, and we need both of them. Just simplifying the services without making the connections work will be unpopular - and explains why people do push for that "hourly from everywhere to everywhere" thing.



Yes. Off-peak it would run via Bolton, peak it would run via Parkside. I think that is to allow for another peak extra from the Bolton direction. I think this messiness is a downside of Option 1.

Thanks. Having re-read the diagram my only explanation for my ineptitude is that it was showing a purple line for the peak Manchester-Scotland.

 

[Llandudno]

Like the report says - there's no perfect solution to this. Although in this case, partial compensation seems be offered in Chester-Victoria-Leeds becoming half-hourly instead.

The Options presented at least highlight the key choices and trade-offs.

Wouldn’t it better if one of the Leeds to Chester trains was extended to the north Wales coast.
Don’t know which TOC would operate it though!

Downside would be no North Wales trains to Piccadilly though!

 

[91103eastcoast]

Wouldn’t it better if one of the Leeds to Chester trains was extended to the north Wales coast.
Don’t know which TOC would operate it though!

Downside would be no North Wales trains to Piccadilly though!

In my opinion that would make sense to avoid service duplication but running longer trains, but I think politically it might be difficult with the North Wales coast services being specified by the Welsh assembly and the Leeds-Manchester route services being specified by the UK government.

 

[peters]

Options for South Manchester:

In Timetable Option A, the following changes are made:
• The 1 train per hour to the Airport and Crewe begins at Piccadilly (rather than Liverpool), calling all stations to Alderley Edge.
• The 1 train per hour to Alderley Edge begins at Piccadilly (rather than Southport).
• The Blackpool to Hazel Grove service increases to 2 trains per hour.
• The 2 trains per hour to Buxton runs during peak periods only, with 1 train per hour in the off-peak

In Timetable Option B, the following changes are made:
• The 1 train per hour to the Airport and Crewe begin at Piccadilly (rather than Liverpool).
• Alderley Edge services become 2 trains per hour all day and begin at Blackpool (rather than Southport).
• 1 train per hour from Piccadilly to Crewe runs via Styal, rather than via Stockport (but not calling at the Airport).
• 2 trains per hour continue to run to Buxton, but trains to Hazel Grove only run in the peaks only, provided by a Hazel Grove to Wigan North Western service.
• The airport line gains a regular pattern all stations local service.

In Timetable Option C, the following changes are made:
• Stopping trains to the Airport and Crewe run at 30-minute intervals and begin at Piccadilly (rather than Liverpool), but both diverted to run via the Airport, giving a regular pattern of calls along the Airport line.
• Alderley Edge services become 2 trains per hour all day and begin at Piccadilly (rather than Southport).
• 2 trains per hour run to Buxton at 30 minute intervals, but trains to Hazel Grove only run in the peaks only, provided by a Hazel Grove to Wigan North Western service.
• A second train per hour is provided on the Mid-Cheshire line, running from North Wales to Piccadilly and calling at Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham and Stockport.

Is it just me or just option C sound a million times better than the other options, giving a consistent service on the Crewe line, 2 trains per hour to Buxton (not one only going to Hazel Grove) and the much needed semi-fast on the Mid-Cheshire? The price seems to be fewer long services through Piccadilly like no Hazel Grove to Blackpool but that could improve punctuality, so not all bad!

 

[Purple Orange]

This Southport to Manchester University is s bit of a redherring. First, the concentration of students at the universities are already in Manchester. Second, Southport as a town doesn’t have a greater concentration of students who attend those universities any more than any other town. What Manchester needs more than anything else is a reliable way to get down Oxford Road from any point in the city centre, which should be a tramline. Other than that, use one of the very frequent bus services from Piccadilly Gardens.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This Southport to Manchester University is s bit of a redherring. First, the concentration of students at the universities are already in Manchester. Second, Southport as a town doesn’t have a greater concentration of students who attend those universities any more than any other town. What Manchester needs more than anything else is a reliable way to get down Oxford Road from any point in the city centre, which should be a tramline. Other than that, use one of the very frequent bus services from Piccadilly Gardens.

There is clearly a very big shout from Southport passengers for services to Castlefield (I don't think the Airport is that significant, for many years it was Southport-Picc-Chester via Altrincham; most Sandgrounders going for a holiday flight would be driving or taking a taxi to Speke for a crack of dawn Ryanair).

I don't know for certain why it is, but it is a very loud shout (pushed by OPSTA but also the local Press). I definitely think it is worth listening to why that is, and at least ensuring that a proper quality of connection is provided rather than just telling people to get lost and get the bus. I also think the idea that Southport line users may actually prefer 1tph to Castlefield over 2tph to Vic (a less frequent but more useful service, which would roughly reflect the pre-1998 timetable) is worthy of investigation - it's very rare that you would actually get passengers and a user's group advocating a service cut on a rural line, but that could be worth looking at purely from a cost-saving point of view.

 

[Ianno87]

If the map is correctly labelled, it shows Liverpool to Cleethorpes being transferred to Northern in Options B and C. Interesting...

Personally, I'd suggest not reading too much into the implied operators off the map. It's the origin-destinations and the service concepts that are important.

Wouldn’t it better if one of the Leeds to Chester trains was extended to the north Wales coast.
Don’t know which TOC would operate it though!

I guess there's no reason why you couldn't; but you wouldn't want to propose that (as a "promise") in this report as it is
a) Not really the point of the report; this is just showing some concepts
b) Probably also not yet tested to see whether it works or not; having a North Wales service then get tied up in the Calder Valley doesn't strike me as a recipe for good performance

 

[travelred]

Option "C" seems to be by far the most logical and most robust, and generally to deliver the most regular service patterns.

One thing—minor in the grand scheme but shewing a particular attitude—I really dislike in "A" and "B" is the willingness to muck around with and degrade a supposedly inter-city service to keep the short-distance travellers happy. In "A" you suddenly lose the "Takt" of the Scotland services in the peak hours, and in "B" it's fine apparently to stick in not only a full Bolton stop but also decelerate with a Chorley stop those already not-very-fast inter-city trains. What's wrong with getting the commuter capacity with longer commuter trains, as Bletchleyite has suggested, rather than by degrading an IC service?

But whichever way you look at it, it does make the Ordsall Chord look like rather a £90 million (or whatever it was) white elephant, doesn't it?

The Chord is just one part of the required infrastructure, surely? The Castlefield corridor needs widening, Salford Central needs redeveloping, platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly need building. The consultation makes clear that this is to try to get the best service in the short to medium term with the existing infrastructure and that infrastructure planning remains as a longer term need.

 

[Llandudno]

Personally, I'd suggest not reading too much into the implied operators off the map. It's the origin-destinations and the service concepts that are important.



I guess there's no reason why you couldn't; but you wouldn't want to propose that (as a "promise") in this report as it is
a) Not really the point of the report; this is just showing some concepts
b) Probably also not yet tested to see whether it works or not; having a North Wales service then get tied up in the Calder Valley doesn't strike me as a recipe for good performance

Here what you say, but Liverpool to Edinburgh runs via the Calder Valley, which is a longer journey than Bangor(?) to Leeds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here what you say, but Liverpool to Edinburgh runs via the Calder Valley, which is a longer journey than Bangor(?) to Leeds.

Erm, no it doesn't, it runs via North TPE?

It should also be binned off north of Newcastle as it's a waste of 802s. I suspect this will indeed happen.

 

[Glenn1969]

TPE only serve the Calder Valley route as a diversion and never in service. I suppose to mitigate the time penalty for Leeds to North Wales passengers you could extend the via Dewsbury train to North Wales instead of one of the via Bradfords.

 

[Llandudno]

Erm, no it doesn't, it runs via North TPE?

It should also be binned off north of Newcastle as it's a waste of 802s. I suspect this will indeed happen.

My bad!

Option C is my choice though and the addition of a skip stop service on the Northwich line would be good.
Passengers from north Wales heading to the Peak District, Sheffield and the East Midlands could change at Stockport instead of clogging up platform 13/14 at Piccadilly

 

[Ianno87]

TPE only serve the Calder Valley route as a diversion and never in service. I suppose to mitigate the time penalty for Leeds to North Wales passengers you could extend the via Dewsbury train to North Wales instead of one of the via Bradfords.

But then you're starting to break down the concept of the timetable being built around 30 minute interval patterns.

 

[peters]

This Southport to Manchester University is s bit of a redherring.

My guess is most of the Manchester University students who are travelling from their home towns, rather than living in university accommodation, would be in the large places close to Manchester like Salford, Bolton, Wigan and Stockport, which would still retain a service to Manchester Oxford Road.

If the argument is it's students who are staying in Manchester so it's more convenient for them to not change trains with suitcases, then that isn't justification for an hourly direct train.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How are North Wales trains getting back to Wales in C ?? Is it via Stockport, Northwich etc, basically the long way round??

Yes, no through services from NW to Warrington or Airport in C (there will be 2x Chester-Vic-Leeds - but they will be stoppers to Vic).
The CLC route via Northwich is slow and has 3 single line sections - it will be a poor performer.
In any solution, TfW services are significantly changed (probably not much demand for Llandudno-Stalybridge on A/B!).
I wonder if they have talked to TfW yet?

There are remarks that lower frequency on some routes will be matched by longer trains.
That won't be possible on TPE routes and probably many others which can't double up or use alternative stock.

They seem to have removed the business case for 769s, as Southport-Alderley Edge will be split across Manchester.
Half-hourly Liverpool-Warrington C-Sheffield looks a good move.

 

[158756]

Option "C" seems to be by far the most logical and most robust, and generally to deliver the most regular service patterns.

One thing—minor in the grand scheme but shewing a particular attitude—I really dislike in "A" and "B" is the willingness to muck around with and degrade a supposedly inter-city service to keep the short-distance travellers happy. In "A" you suddenly lose the "Takt" of the Scotland services in the peak hours, and in "B" it's fine apparently to stick in not only a full Bolton stop but also decelerate with a Chorley stop those already not-very-fast inter-city trains. What's wrong with getting the commuter capacity with longer commuter trains, as Bletchleyite has suggested, rather than by degrading an IC service?

But whichever way you look at it, it does make the Ordsall Chord look like rather a £90 million (or whatever it was) white elephant, doesn't it?

I think the putting the Chorley stop (back) in the Scottish trains is probably because they lose the Preston-Victoria train - all Blackpool trains become stoppers to make up for it at the smaller stations(probably making Blackpool to Manchester slower than it was before electrification) - can't see Blackpool being happy about this. It might make more sense from the point of view of longer distance passengers to put the Chorley stop on the Cumbria trains, but maybe it needs the EMU acceleration to make the half hourly pattern work.

I also see options B and C go back to 2tph on the Atherton line, a far cry from the 4tph promised by the last franchise. More reason this should be handed over to Metrolink.

 

[Greybeard33]

My choice would be Option C, especially since it would improve the service on my local line (the Mid Cheshire)

But I think it will encounter a lot of political opposition, because of the large number of users who would lose direct services and/or have increased journey times. In timetable recasts, the loud complaints from losers always drown out the faint praise from gainers.

I have tried to summarise below all the losers, line by line:
CLC line:
• Loss of direct service Liverpool – Airport (change at Oxford Road)
• Loss of direct cross-Warrington service for the lesser stations (change at Warrington Central)
• Some lesser stations have increased journey times to Manchester (all shacks)
Chat Moss line:
• Loss of direct service Liverpool – Piccadilly & Airport (change at Oxford Road)
Wigan lines:
• Off peak, reduction from 3tph to 2tph on the Atherton line (already cut from 4tph!)
• Loss of direct service Southport – Piccadilly & Stockport (change at Bolton or Salford Crescent, and at Piccadilly for Stockport)
• Off peak, loss of direct service Southport – Oxford Road
• Off peak, loss of fast service Wigan NW – Piccadilly & Airport via Chat Moss
Bolton - Chorley - Preston line:
• Loss of direct service Blackpool – Stockport (change at Piccadilly)
• Off peak, loss of direct service Preston – Salford Central & Victoria (change at Salford Crescent)
Blackburn – Clitheroe line:
• Increased journey times to Manchester via Bolton due to calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley (DMU stoppers on electrified line!)
Hazel Grove line:
• Loss of direct service Hazel Grove – Bolton, Preston & Blackpool (change at Piccadilly, main shed to P13/14, or at both Stockport and Piccadilly)
• Off peak, reduction from 3tph to 2tph (wires to Hazel Grove only used in peaks!)
Stockport – Crewe line:
• Loss of direct stopping service Stockport/Cheadle Hulme/Handforth – Chelford/Goostrey/Holmes Chapel/Sandbach/Crewe (change at Wilmslow)
Sheffield via Hope Valley line:
• Loss of direct service Cleethorpes/Sheffield – Airport (change at Piccadilly)
Huddersfield - Leeds line:
• Increased journey time Piccadilly – Hull (all shacks Stalybridge – Huddersfield)
• Peak only, reduction from 2tph to 1tph on Ordsall Chord (Victoria – Piccadilly & Airport)
Chester & N Wales lines:
• Increased journey time N Wales – Manchester (slower direct service to Piccadilly via Northwich, or change at Chester for Victoria via Warrington)
• Loss of direct services N Wales & Chester – Oxford Road or Airport (large increase in journey times)

Altogether that is going to add up to a lot of aggrieved users kicking off!

 

[yorksrob]

Surely something akin to what's been running last year should be fine ! I've been through Castlefield several times and had very few issues.

 

[Ianno87]

Blackburn – Clitheroe line:
• Increased journey times to Manchester via Bolton due to calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley (DMU stoppers on electrified line!)

Class 769s.....?

Altogether that is going to add up to a lot of aggrieved users kicking off!

But we're in a situation where historic demand is virtually resetting. There's never been a better time to embed better service patterns as people will use the railway very differently in years to come. The document very well articulates the positives of the strategy.

Effectively says "doing nothing is not and option, we need to pick one of A, B or C. Over to you."

Surely something akin to what's been running last year should be fine ! I've been through Castlefield several times and had very few issues.

You could pick out some services, particularly in the peaks, that routinely passed through the corridor 5 minutes or more late, every single day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 769s.....?

319s are probably slower off the mark than a modern DMU, they really are quite leisurely and underpowered. But in terms of not running DMUs under the wires I agree. Same for Buxton.

 

[Ianno87]

319s are probably slower off the mark than a modern DMU, they really are quite leisurely and underpowered. But in terms of not running DMUs under the wires I agree. Same for Buxton.

Or, heaven forbid, new build bi-modes for Northern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or, heaven forbid, new build bi-modes for Northern.

OT, but that is what they should have done in the first place - a single fleet of 3-car bi-modes (plus maybe some 4-car EMUs for Yorkshire).

Battery 331 conversions perhaps.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd be inclined to go with option A. It keeps most of the inter-regional links, and I don't like the idea of splitting the Man - Liv CLC stopper at Warrington. The only things I would add are:

- Why are they dropping to 1 Buxton an hour ? Given it terminates in the bay at Pic, these services should presumably cause minimal disruption.
- I'm inclined to think that the Manchester - Scotlands should stop at Bolton anyway. It's an important regional centre and the train has to slow down to go through there anyway.
- To improve services on the mid-cheshire line, couldn't they have an additional train an hour to Stockport, connecting into Manchester.